Re: The mathematical name behind "unfold-right" in srfi-1 John Cowan (06 Jun 2020 19:07 UTC) Re: The mathematical name behind "unfold-right" in srfi-1 Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (06 Jun 2020 19:23 UTC) Total functional programming Lassi Kortela (06 Jun 2020 19:37 UTC) Re: The mathematical name behind "unfold-right" in srfi-1 Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (06 Jun 2020 19:37 UTC) Re: The mathematical name behind "unfold-right" in srfi-1 Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (06 Jun 2020 19:53 UTC) Re: The mathematical name behind "unfold-right" in srfi-1 Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (06 Jun 2020 20:18 UTC)

Re: The mathematical name behind "unfold-right" in srfi-1 Marc Nieper-WiÃkirchen 06 Jun 2020 19:37 UTC

```Am Sa., 6. Juni 2020 um 21:23 Uhr schrieb Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
<xxxxxx@nieper-wisskirchen.de>:

> > If I had the time, I'd love to put together a Lisp that uses the principles of Turner's elementary total functional programming <https://homepages.dcc.ufmg.br/~mariza/CELP/sblp2004/papers/turner.pdf>, which obliterates the difference between lazy and strict by allowing codata to be constructed but not accessed, thus making it truly the dual of data.  The language is not Turing-complete, but an amazing number of algorithms are available nonetheless.  The paper is very accessible (as proved by the fact that I understand it) and well worth reading.
>
> Thanks for the reference. I will take a look at it.

I just stumbled about the question of whether f⊥=⊥or not. The paper
says (correctly, of course) that the eager languages say yes while
lazy languages say no. This may look like some asymmetry between
eagerness and laziness but, in fact, everything is completely
symmetric: Instead of applying a (potential) calculation "f" to a
*value*, which is ⊥in this case, we can also turn the whole program
inside out and co-apply a *continuation* to a calculation "f". In the
case of the continuation⊥, we are therefore led to the question of
whether ⊥f =⊥or not. Well, an eager language says no while a lazy
language says yes.
```